Walking Alongside: A Pedagogy of Working with Parents and Family in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this chapter, I take up Smith’s (2012) conceptualization of pedagogy as “the thinking and practice of those educators who look to accompany learners; care for and about them; and bring learning to life” (np). I first make visible my thinking about parents and families which underlies my pedagogy. Here, I use Green and Christian’s (1998) notion of “accompanying” and Noddings’ (2002) notion of “caring about” to elaborate on my metaphorical understanding of the position of educators as one of walking alongside parents and family members in the education and schooling of their children. I then reflectively turn to my practice with undergraduate teacher education students to discuss what I do, in my own walking alongside, to live out a “curriculum of parents” (Pushor, 2011, 2013) with students. I use my course, Teaching and Learning in Community Education, to provide a live example of my pedagogy in practice and, finally, I reflect on my experiences within this pedagogy of working with parents and family to pull forward considerations that I feel are worthy of “deeper noticing” (Bateson, 1995).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".